The following statement, which UCLA law professor Adam Winkler and I crafted, was signed by more than fifty of the nation's most distinguished constitutional law professors. The statement refutes unfounded claims that the Second Amendment precludes Congress from enacting legislation to reduce gun violence in the United States. Although these scholars hold widely divergent views on constitutional interpretation, and often fiercely disagree on a broad range of constitutional issues, they all agree on this question. The statement was submitted today to Congress in anticipation of the beginning of hearings on the proposed legislation.

Statement of Professors of Constitutional Law: The Second Amendment and the Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun Violence Prevention Legislation

Several proposed reforms to the nation's gun laws, including universal background checks and restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons, are now pending before Congress. Concerns have been raised that these measures might violate the Second Amendment. We, the undersigned professors with expertise in constitutional law, write to address those concerns.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment, which provides, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," guarantees an individual's right to have a functional firearm in the home for self-defense. The Court's decision in that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down a D.C. law that effectively barred the use of any firearm for self-defense. The law is now clear that the government may not completely disarm law-abiding, responsible citizens. The Court also made clear, however, that many gun regulations remain constitutionally permissible. "Like most rights," the Court explained, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that restrictions on "dangerous and unusual" weapons are constitutional and that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt" on laws that prohibit "the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill" or laws that impose "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

In this sense, Justice Scalia recognized in Heller that, like other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is not an absolute. The First Amendment, for example, provides that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," but the Supreme Court has long and consistently held that some types of speech -- for example, defamation, obscenity and threats -- can be regulated; that some people -- for example, public employees, members of the military, students and prisoners -- are subject to greater restrictions on their speech than others; and that the government can reasonably regulate the time, place and manner of speech. As Justice Scalia explained in Heller, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are likewise subject to appropriate regulation in order to enhance public safety.

In acknowledging the presumptive constitutionality of laws designed to prevent gun violence, including restrictions on who has access to firearms and what types of firearms they may have, Heller is consistent with the history of the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment also had laws to keep guns out of the hands of people thought to be untrustworthy. Such laws were necessary to ensure that the citizen militia referenced in the Second Amendment was "well regulated." In the 1800s, many states restricted the sale or public possession of concealable firearms. In the early twentieth century, the federal government restricted access to unusually dangerous weapons, such as machine guns, and states barred people convicted of certain felonies from possessing firearms. Laws such as these were routinely upheld by the courts, which recognized the legitimacy of legislative efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people.

While the permissibility of any particular reform depends on its details, the reforms currently being considered by Congress are clearly consistent with the Second Amendment. We express no view on the effectiveness or desirability of the policies reflected in the various proposals, but we all agree that none infringes the core right identified by the Court in Heller.

Universal background checks, especially those conducted instantaneously through the National Instant Background Check System, do not impose a significant burden on law-abiding citizens. Yet background checks may provide an important safeguard against easy access to guns by members of criminal street gangs, other felons and the mentally ill. As with other rights that have eligibility criteria, such as the right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms is not offended by neutral measures designed to ensure that only eligible, law-abiding citizens exercise the right. Moreover, background checks imposed at the point of sale are typical of the "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller.

Restrictions on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons are also consistent with the Second Amendment. In a recent opinion authored by Judge Douglas Ginsburg and joined by Judge Karen Henderson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that such regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment and with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. The court of appeals recognized such weapons and magazines are not necessary for individual self-defense -- what Heller called the "core lawful purpose" of the Second Amendment. Restrictions on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, the court of appeals held, do "not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves." The Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, does not prevent lawmakers from enacting reasonable regulations that do not seriously interfere with the core right guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has clearly held that the Second Amendment preserves the right of law-abiding citizens to have a firearm in the home for self-defense. As both the historical tradition of the right to bear arms and the Court's decision suggest, reasonable and limited measures to enhance public safety that do not unduly burden that right are consistent with the Second Amendment.

In this sense, Justice Scalia recognized in Heller that, like other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is not an absolute. The First Amendment, for example, provides that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," but the Supreme Court has long and consistently held that some types of speech -- for example, defamation, obscenity and threats -- can be regulated; that some people -- for example, public employees, members of the military, students and prisoners -- are subject to greater restrictions on their speech than others; and that the government can reasonably regulate the time, place and manner of speech. As Justice Scalia explained in Heller, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are likewise subject to appropriate regulation in order to enhance public safety.

Like the hundreds who came up with the "greenhouse effect". Or is it "global warming"? I think now it's called "climate change".

Now the most recent study shows that in fact the earth's temperature has not risen in the past 15 years. It actually has been cooling. But, I guess idiots will now claim that the cooling is "climate change". Right?

Like the hundreds who came up with the "greenhouse effect". Or is it "global warming"? I think now it's called "climate change".

Now the most recent study shows that in fact the earth's temperature has not risen in the past 15 years. It actually has been cooling. But, I guess idiots will now claim that the cooling is "climate change". Right?

fox news smart dario is getting his news from fox and friends hahahahahahaha

Fox News: "Global Warming Over." The story was subsequently picked up by Fox Nation, which linked to it under the headline "Report: Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago," and Fox & Friends, which featured the report with the chyron "Global Warming Over":

BRIAN KILMEADE: And, it seems the White House is pushing their green energy agenda for nothing. Shocking news about global warming just in.

[...]

KILMEADE: Global warming ended 16 years ago. That's according to new data, which shows average temperatures have not gone up since 1997. Before that, temperatures were declining.

As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous - so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ēC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Scientist Quoted In Daily Mail Article Said Article Misrepresented Her Views. Judith Curry, a climate scientist who frequently criticizes the IPCC, was quoted by the Daily Mail as saying that models used to predict future climate change are "deeply flawed." She responded on her website that she did not tell the Daily Mail reporter Rose that the new data showed the models are "deeply flawed" and that she "agree that 16 years is too short" a period to measure whether climate change is occurring:

I have no idea where the 'deeply flawed' came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted [sic] (perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?) Also, I agree that 16 years is too short, given the timescales of the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is associated with La Niņa] and AMO [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is associated with El Niņo], to separate out natural versus anthropogenic variability (but this cuts both ways: the warming period between 1980 and 1998 was arguably amped by the PDO and AMO). [JudithCurry.com, 10/14/12]

Like the hundreds who came up with the "greenhouse effect". Or is it "global warming"? I think now it's called "climate change".

Now the most recent study shows that in fact the earth's temperature has not risen in the past 15 years. It actually has been cooling. But, I guess idiots will now claim that the cooling is "climate change". Right?

the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000. And 2012 was the 36th year in a row that the global average temperature was above the 20th century mean of 57 degrees Fahrenheit.

the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000. And 2012 was the 36th year in a row that the global average temperature was above the 20th century mean of 57 degrees Fahrenheit.

SHUT UP GET EMOTIONAL AND LET THAT TELL YOU WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG!!!!

the weather does seem fucked up and we had a big hurricane, and pollution from those big companies that employ everyone is frighting! and guns kill innocent people sometimes, we could live in a better world if only we had a government that would take care of us and the climate and pay for everyone to go to the dentist and make all the bad stuff go away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we are scheduled to go through a warming period in a few hundred thousand years. but we are causing it to happen much sooner and much more severely than it otherwise would have. putting half a trillion tons of carbon plus billions of tons of other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is going to effect climate. and we are seeing those effects now, , more and more days over 100 degrees, more and more hurricanes, more and more extreme weather. species extinction is at an astronomical rate. nearly all the species in the oceans are on the decline. all the reefs are pretty much gone. glaciers are melting. etc etc.

we are scheduled to go through a warming period in a few hundred thousand years. but we are causing it to happen much sooner and much more severely than it otherwise would have. putting half a trillion tons of carbon plus billions of tons of other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is going to effect climate. and we are seeing those effects now, , more and more days over 100 degrees, more and more hurricanes, more and more extreme weather. species extinction is at an astronomical rate. nearly all the species in the oceans are on the decline. all the reefs are pretty much gone. glaciers are melting. etc etc.

ur welcome.. probably too late for us to do anything about it really.. in 50 years the weather on this planet is going to be so fucked up, global population will probably decline to just a couple billion.

ur welcome.. probably too late for us to do anything about it really.. in 50 years the weather on this planet is going to be so fucked up, global population will probably decline to just a couple billion.

we are scheduled to go through a warming period in a few hundred thousand years. but we are causing it to happen much sooner and much more severely than it otherwise would have. putting half a trillion tons of carbon plus billions of tons of other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is going to effect climate. and we are seeing those effects now, , more and more days over 100 degrees, more and more hurricanes, more and more extreme weather. species extinction is at an astronomical rate. nearly all the species in the oceans are on the decline. all the reefs are pretty much gone. glaciers are melting. etc etc.

The real world is going to be like a prison gang rape for your college learning son. You literally do not realize how much you have been indoctrinated yet but you will soon.

First the name is Tony, you may want to make note of others names bc your boss or hiring manager may not enjoy being called the wrong name repeatedly.

Second no dispute of whether or not the recordings over the last 132 years of the earths billions of years of existence is getting warmer. What is debateable is whether or not humans are causing any of it and if they are to what extent.

Again your college shaped views are going to collide very quickly with the real world.

Half a trillion sounds like a lot! How many tons of gas comprise our total atmosphere?

There's a lot of evidence that there is more fluctuation in total naturally occurring c02 than humans even emit in total (which is only like 3% of c02).

dude, step outside. notice the weather. go down to a busy street and watch all the cars drive by, think about the fact that the same thing (roads filled with cars for hours on end) is going on all over the world, and has been for a hundred years. think about how much oil that is that has been burned, and that is continuing to burn. think about how much our c02 levels must be in excess of where they would have been otherwise. think. its not that hard dude.

dude, step outside. notice the weather. go down to a busy street and watch all the cars drive by, think about the fact that the same thing (roads filled with cars for hours on end) is going on all over the world, and has been for a hundred years. think about how much oil that is that has been burned, and that is continuing to burn. think about how much our c02 levels must be in excess of where they would have been otherwise. think. its not that hard dude.